If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It's not an employment status. You legally become part of the government. For your service and loyalty, the government is responsible for your well-being.

There is no employment contract, you get called to the office by the state. All parts of a usual contract are dealt with by laws. You have no right to strike, if you commit a fellony you are doubly punished, once by the penal system and by a disciplinary action. But for that the government pays you a pension directly, you don't get the regular public insurance funded one everyone else gets.

Tapapapatalk

Is it like being a slave, or in the army?

Kinda...it's like a life sentence.
After retirement you're still a Beamter(in retirement). Some parts of public services disciplinary law stay in effect. Kinda lulzy.

This.

And I totally agree that teachers should be forced to see a therapist. We recently had a younger colleague be ordered to stay home after a stress induced breakdown. It's a retarded rule and everyone in the education service I've met is questioning it. But for teachers the trend was away from Beamte towards regular employees. Appointing teachers Beamte only picked up again in some states due to a MASSIVE demand for new teachers. The Beamte status is coveted because it offers job security (tenure) and a higher income (you don't pay into the public unemployment and pension funds). Berlin just went the opposite way, regular employee status but massive increase in pay that only after 10-15 years of service a Beamter overtakes.

One of the ideas behind this "Beamter" thing is (in jobs that aren't teaching) that the state can't pay competitive wages for highly educated employees, so they offer somethings else instead which may be as appealing in the long run.

This "tenure" thing is terrible though. They can't be fired for anything short of really gross misdemeanors, such as serious corruption. Not doing the work one is supposed to do is not a gross misdemeanor. There are highly motivated public servants, but the "Beamtenwitz" is not a staple of German humor for nothing.

I never understood why people oppose paying public servants competitive wages. You want well paid motivated people in those positions...

The way my civil service friend (despairing of the half of her colleagues who do very little productive work) explained it to me is "for society to function there needs to be somewhere that people with major health, mental health or behavioral issues can earn an income on flexible terms without getting fired for absences or conduct".

But you have low level service jobs for that. Not jobs that can ruin a country :-/

Low level service jobs fire people for not turning up. The civil service doesnt. For someone with major but intermittant mental health issues thats the difference between working or not. Also these people might be unproductive but that doesnt mean they are necessarily totally incompetent or bad, just unreliable etc.

But you have low level service jobs for that. Not jobs that can ruin a country :-/

Low level service jobs fire people for not turning up. The civil service doesnt. For someone with major but intermittant mental health issues thats the difference between working or not. Also these people might be unproductive but that doesnt mean they are necessarily totally incompetent or bad, just unreliable etc.

Certain parts of the civil service have notoriously bad work practices and cultures. Can't really blame the unconscious employees for a steady decline into apathy and unreliability.

All that matters is they are paid enough to keep consuming.

Originally Posted by Paul Mason

It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

Certain parts of the civil service have notoriously bad work practices and cultures.

So do mast parts of the private sector as well

Yeah but they've acquired enough capital over the years that the perception of success means the government is willing to suck their cock in return for party donations.

Originally Posted by Paul Mason

It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

Certain parts of the civil service have notoriously bad work practices and cultures.

So do mast parts of the private sector as well

Difference is, private sector has occasional redundancy or performance related cullings. Civil service rarely does anything other than early retirement / voluntary redundancy (which usually gets rid of the most competent)

Certain parts of the civil service have notoriously bad work practices and cultures.

So do mast parts of the private sector as well

Difference is, private sector has occasional redundancy or performance related cullings. Civil service rarely does anything other than early retirement / voluntary redundancy (which usually gets rid of the most competent)

Not sure how that's really much of a difference. They still both have widespread poor work practice and culture.

Certain parts of the civil service have notoriously bad work practices and cultures.

So do mast parts of the private sector as well

Difference is, private sector has occasional redundancy or performance related cullings. Civil service rarely does anything other than early retirement / voluntary redundancy (which usually gets rid of the most competent)

Not sure how that's really much of a difference. They still both have widespread poor work practice and culture.

For me personally it comes down to:

A private company that provides a shitty service due to poor work practice and culture is going to stop receiving any money from me very quickly.
A public service that provides a shitty service due to poor work practice and culture is going to continue to get a portion of my taxes.

Though many such private companies survive thanks to apathetic/ignorant customers or lucking into having a small number of hyper-competent people that keep the wider company running, they are still exposed to significantly more selection pressure to avoid such practices and thanks to this I can invariably find one that is competent when I want something. The public sector is not exposed to such pressures or competition, so my tax money gets thrown at them regardless.

In my own direct experience both as a customer and an employee, the private sector invariably has a higher frequency of competency unless some sort of natural monopoly comes into play.

Certain parts of the civil service have notoriously bad work practices and cultures.

So do mast parts of the private sector as well

Difference is, private sector has occasional redundancy or performance related cullings. Civil service rarely does anything other than early retirement / voluntary redundancy (which usually gets rid of the most competent)

Not sure how that's really much of a difference. They still both have widespread poor work practice and culture.

For me personally it comes down to:

A private company that provides a shitty service due to poor work practice and culture is going to stop receiving any money from me very quickly.
A public service that provides a shitty service due to poor work practice and culture is going to continue to get a portion of my taxes.

Though many such private companies survive thanks to apathetic/ignorant customers or lucking into having a small number of hyper-competent people that keep the wider company running, they are still exposed to significantly more selection pressure to avoid such practices and thanks to this I can invariably find one that is competent when I want something. The public sector is not exposed to such pressures or competition, so my tax money gets thrown at them regardless.

In my own direct experience both as a customer and an employee, the private sector invariably has a higher frequency of competency unless some sort of natural monopoly comes into play.

Counterpoint: The civil service hasn't plunged the economy into a decade long recession.

Originally Posted by Paul Mason

It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

Counterpoint: the companies (banks) that DID do that are actually some of the most efficiently and effectively run companies filled with the most competent people and highest competency average of any companies in the world.

Thats not to say they arent still filled with incompetent fuckwits, but its all relative - less incompetent than your average company for sure.

Counterpoint: the companies (banks) that DID do that are actually some of the most efficiently and effectively run companies in the world.

>effectively run

Does this have some other meaning I'm not aware of?

Originally Posted by Paul Mason

It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

Counterpoint: the companies (banks) that DID do that are actually some of the most efficiently and effectively run companies in the world.

>effectively run

Does this have some other meaning I'm not aware of?

"productively"

What do they produce? Misery?

Originally Posted by Paul Mason

It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.